And even if it were copyrighted, I suspect that photobloke's photo would fall under a fair use doctrine.

It could fall under fair use if he wasn't trying to sell it, distribute it or submit it to a photo contest as his own work.

I will leave you with this case in point about a well-publicized lawsuit brought against graphic artist Shepard Fairey by the Associated Press. Fairey used a copyrighted photo without permission to make what was arguably the most famous icon of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. He altered the original photo substantially, but as he learned he had opened a hornet's nest of a legal battle.

In some places of the world, a work of art loses most of its copyright restrictions as soon as it is willingly exposed in a public place (like a statue in a park, for example, but obviously not a painting in a galley). So, if the author of those photographs allowed to display them in a public place, photobloke might have the right to make a photograph of them.

Can I just say in my defence and as a possible conclusion to this surprisingly heated debate, that I have never taken images of other people's work before or after that image was taken, nor do I intend to do so ever again and also as a resident of the UK, I am not even sure that the limitation infringements you are assuming to ascribe to this image (however debatable) as well as the assumed illegality of me showing it to you all, would actually apply to me outside of the US anyway. Neither did I or will I ever claim, that the subject/content of the image was wholly and solely the product of all my own work.

I freely admit that the wall of images it is based on are not mine and never will be nor do I want them to be, but I thought the interpretation was mine.

It would be indeed foolish to rely on luck in legal matters. We have legal precedents instead.

"Common misunderstandings:... If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use...." (Wikipedia)

It would be indeed foolish to rely on luck in legal matters. We have legal precedents instead.

"Common misunderstandings:... If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use...." (Wikipedia)

Yes, parody is a special case, but we're not taking about parody here.

Yes, parody is a special case, but we're not taking about parody here.

Man, you are taking things too literally! Parody was given just as an example, not as a sole criteria. There are other precedents of commercial use, outside of parody, that were considered fair use by courts. There are four basic criteria for fair use, and photobloke's photo would not fit any one of those, let alone taken together.

Man, you are taking things too literally! Parody was given just as an example, not as a sole criteria. There are other precedents of commercial use, outside of parody, that were considered fair use by courts. There are four basic criteria for fair use, and photobloke's photo would not fit any one of those, let alone taken together.

Actually, his picture crosses the line on one of the four criteria. And that's all it would take to justify a cease and desist order. Here's what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html